Emily Sawicki
March 4, 2026
Fighters Allege UFC Destroyed 'Years Of Critical Evidence'
4 min
AI-made summary
- • Three former UFC fighters have requested severe sanctions, including default judgment, over alleged destruction of evidence in their antitrust class action. • Plaintiffs claim UFC, its parent companies, and counsel destroyed years of critical evidence and violated multiple discovery orders and Rule 26 obligations. • The motion alleges key individuals, including UFC President Dana White, failed to preserve or deleted relevant data, though they are not parties to the suit. • The discovery dispute also involves nonparty Dominance MMA LLC, which is resisting plaintiffs' demands and has been asked to explain potential contempt. • UFC denies the allegations, stating it has produced over 6.2 million pages of documents and is fully complying with discovery obligations.
A trio of former Ultimate Fighting Championship fighters pursuing wage-fixing claims in a proposed class action against the mixed martial arts organization have now moved for "severe" sanctions over alleged document destruction, asking a Nevada federal court to issue a default judgment in their favor.
Tristan Connelly, right, seen here fighting Michael Pereira during an Ultimate Fighting Championship Fight Night in 2019, is one of three plaintiffs who accuse the UFC of operating an anticompetitive business to maintain a monopoly over the mixed martial arts market. (Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press via AP) In a sanctions motion filed Wednesday, named plaintiffs Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway and Tristan Connelly told the court that TKO Operating Co. LLC — which does business as UFC — along with its majority owner, Endeavor Group Holdings Inc., and operator Zuffa LLC together "destroyed years of critical evidence" pertinent to the antitrust case, and then spent months scheming to cover up their spoliation.
"Defendants' brazen obfuscation of spoliation and counsels' disregard for their Rule 26(g) obligations and this court's authority, evidenced by violations of every discovery order, shows an intentional years-long effort to spoliate key evidence by key custodians, to create the conditions to allow the loss, and, worst of all, to cover it up, obscuring the true extent of the destruction," the plaintiffs said in their motion. "Severe sanctions must follow."
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes general rules governing discovery. According to the plaintiffs, UFC and its Latham & Watkins LLP counsel violated the rule by failing to conduct a "reasonable investigation" into certain communications, while claiming to have done so.
"Either Latham & Watkins did not perform a reasonable investigation and claimed to have done so, concealing the spoliation, or they conducted a reasonable investigation and misrepresented the results to the court to conceal the spoliation," the motion alleges.
The suit accuses Zuffa and the UFC of operating an anticompetitive business to maintain a monopoly over the mixed martial arts market, allegedly suppressing competition, leading to suppressed wages for participants.
In the fighters' Wednesday motion, various individuals including UFC President Dana White are described individually as spoliators who allegedly failed to preserve cell phone data, deleted certain messages and social media accounts and failed to produce some devices. White and the others are not parties to the suit.
The fighters argued there was a "clear intent to deprive" them of materials in violation of several court orders, which gives rise to terminating sanctions according to Ninth Circuit precedent.
"Default may be ordered as a sanction after a finding of willfulness, bad faith, or fault," the motion states.
Short of that, the fighters said in their motion, mandatory adverse inferences are appropriate, permitting the plaintiffs to present evidence of the alleged spoliation and blocking the defendants from making certain arguments.
In January, a Ninth Circuit panel temporarily paused a discovery order, following a UFC petition that called it "breathtakingly overbroad." The administrative stay was mooted days later, when the Nevada federal court partially reeled in the order, stating that rather than produce potentially privileged materials for in camera review, the defendants should appear at a previously scheduled spoliation hearing, and any discovery orders should proceed from there.
The motion is the latest move in a widespread discovery battle that also includes a nonparty talent agency called Dominance MMA LLC.
On Monday, Dominance filed a response fighting the plaintiffs' ongoing discovery demands, writing in part that it "expended significant time and resources over several months attempting to comply with the subpoena and the court's order while safeguarding confidential information belonging to third parties."
The fighters have asked the court to order Dominance to explain why it should not be held in contempt for discovery delays.
On Thursday, UFC fans lodged their own monopoly claims in a proposed class action in Nevada federal court, alleging the company's cornering of the market for pay-per-view mixed martial arts events resulted in them overpaying for pay-per-view events and streaming services.
"UFC has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery obligations," a UFC spokesperson said in a statement to Law360 on Friday. "As our opposition to plaintiffs' baseless motion will explain, UFC has produced over 6.2 million pages of documents in response to plaintiffs' requests. Plaintiff's motion is completely at odds with this reality and UFC's full compliance with its discovery obligations to date."
Counsel for the fighters did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Kevin E. Rayhill, Itak Moradi and T. Brent Jordan of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, by Eric L. Cramer, Michael Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden and Joshua P. Davis of Berger Montague PC, by Benjamin D. Brown, Richard A. Koffman and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by W. Joseph Bruckner, Brian D. Clark and Kyle Pozan of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and by Michael J. Gayan of Claggett & Sykes.
Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Co. LLC and Endeavor Group Holdings Inc. are represented by William A. Isaacson, Jessica Phillips and Agbeko Petty of Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, by J. Colby Williams and Samuel R. Mirkovich of Campbell & Williams, and by Christopher S. Yates, Aaron T. Chiu, Sean M. Berkowitz, Laura Washington and Joseph Axelrad of Latham & Watkins LLP.
The case is Kajan Johnson et al. v. Zuffa LLC et al., case number 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Article Author
Emily Sawicki
The Sponsor
